Over and back rule

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I just don't think that we should be defining holding with a question

We're (or at least I'm) not defining it with a question. While many officials have trouble with the "was it a throw or a bat" question, very few have trouble with the "would you grant a TO" question. Once they see that the questions are the same, then they have no trouble with the former.

It's a teaching tool. Like all such items, if it doesn't work for you, don't use it.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Of course, we could always ask ourselves if we would grant a request for a timeout during the bat in a jump ball? That would clinch the deal.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

We're not defining it with a question. While many officials have trouble with the "was it a throw or a bat" question, very few have trouble with the "would you grant a TO" question. Once they see that the questions are the same, then they have no trouble with the former. It's a teaching tool..

Sounds good, as long as you don't use it, as you've already stated, as a some type of quasi definition.

Kind of like a simple litmus test?

By the way, I would not grant a request for a timeout while the ball is being tapped (batted), even if it was a controlled tap (bat), during a jump ball.

Guess the litmus paper turned red in this situation? (Thanks to Scrapper1 for the jump ball analogy.)

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Sounds good, as long as you don't use it, as you've already stated, as a some type of quasi definition.

Agree. If you can cite a pertinent rule, then just cite it....instead of citing something completely quasi like....oh.....maybe something completely un-official like one of your Mythbusters.